curator-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jordan Zimmerman <jor...@jordanzimmerman.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Curator version 2.10.0 and 3.1.0
Date Wed, 10 Feb 2016 01:12:03 GMT
Excellent. Thanks everyone. I’ll work on a new release.

-Jordan

> On Feb 9, 2016, at 8:10 PM, Cameron McKenzie <mckenzie.cam@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 3.0 build ran with no test errors. Nice work Scott!
> 
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Cameron McKenzie <mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Thanks for sorting this Scott,
>> I'm running the tests on 3.0 now.
>> cheers
>> 
>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Scott Blum <dragonsinth@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Alright... pushed!  I think this fixes things.  Thanks for your patience!
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <
>>> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com
>>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Sounds good - go ahead.
>>>> 
>>>> On Feb 9, 2016, at 6:02 PM, Scott Blum <dragonsinth@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I want to push a commit to master, merge master into 3.0, and then push
>>>> another commit into 3.0.  I think this will fix TestTreeCache and also
>>>> generally make that test fail faster if we write a bad test in the
>>> future.
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Scott Blum <dragonsinth@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I think the problem may be that the new testCreateParents() test is
>>>>> creating pollution.. working on this now.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <
>>>>> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I’d really like to do a simultaneous release. So, I’ll cancel
this
>>>>>> release.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -Jordan
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Feb 9, 2016, at 11:51 AM, Scott Blum <dragonsinth@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Actually let me clarify..
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> +1 on 2.10.0
>>>>>> -1 on 3.1.0
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Scott Blum <dragonsinth@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Going to -1 until we track down the TestTreeCache failures (today).
>>>>>>> Also, floated a potential issue with NamespaceWatcher under separate
>>>>>>> subject.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:45 AM, Scott Blum <dragonsinth@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Let me take a look tomorrow.  I had no idea they were failing
on
>>> 3.0.
>>>>>>>> Maybe this was known-failures masking unknown-failures.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:43 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <
>>>>>>>> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Should we cancel the release? Scott?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 8, 2016, at 10:21 PM, Cameron McKenzie <
>>>>>>>>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> The tree cache tests still seem to be failing for
me on the 3.0
>>>>>>>>> branch
>>>>>>>>>> though.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Cameron McKenzie
<
>>>>>>>>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> OK, let me rerun the tests. I think that making
the tests more
>>>>>>>>> reliable
>>>>>>>>>>> would definitely be a good thing. I'm happy to
have a look into
>>>>>>>>> this also.
>>>>>>>>>>> cheers
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Jordan Zimmerman
<
>>>>>>>>>>> jordan@jordanzimmerman.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Many tests are flakey and fail/pass. I have
plans to address
>>> this
>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> future. But, I don’t think it should hold
the release as it’s
>>>>>>>>> been the case
>>>>>>>>>>>> for a long time. But, I’m OK with whatever
the group decides.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> -JZ
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 8, 2016, at 6:25 PM, Cameron McKenzie
<
>>>>>>>>> mckenzie.cam@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Keys verify OK.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.10.0:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TestBoundedDistributedQueue.testMulti
failed on the first run,
>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>>> passed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> subsequently, so I guess this is ok.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.1.0:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Failed tests:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>> org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor(org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Run 1:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor:533->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:170
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=INITIALIZED, data=null}
expected
>>>>>>>>> [NODE_ADDED] but
>>>>>>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [INITIALIZED]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Run 2:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteNodeAfterCloseDoesntCallExecutor:537->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:178
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=NODE_ADDED, data=ChildData{path='/test',
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stat=2,2,1454970465429,1454970465429,0,0,0,0,9,0,2
>>>>>>>>>>>>> , data=[49, 50, 55, 46, 48, 46, 49, 46,
49]}} expected
>>>>>>>>> [/test/one] but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> found [/test]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>> org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache.testDeleteThenCreate(org.apache.curator.framework.recipes.cache.TestTreeCache)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Run 1:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>> TestTreeCache.testDeleteThenCreate:371->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:158->BaseTestTreeCache.assertEvent:170
>>>>>>>>>>>>> TreeCacheEvent{type=INITIALIZED, data=null}
expected
>>>>>>>>> [NODE_ADDED] but
>>>>>>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [INITIALIZED]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Run 2: PASS
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Jordan
Zimmerman <
>>>>>>>>> randgalt@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a combined vote to release
Apache Curator versions
>>>>>>>>> 2.10.0 and
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.1.0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *** Please download, test and vote
within approx. 72 hours
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that we are voting upon the
source (tag) and binaries
>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided for convenience.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Link to release notes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.1.10 -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333942
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.1.0 -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12314425&version=12333884
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Staging repos:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/2.10.0/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/curator/3.1.0/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Binary artifacts:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.1.10 -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1020
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.1.0 -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecurator-1021
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The tags to be voted upon:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2.10.0 -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=eaaba2fe96a964654631ed4248315f83ea677521
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3.1.0 -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=curator.git;a=tag;h=2cd4babca1720cd3acb501d76d5c2fad90aaf2c9
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Curator's KEYS file containing PGP
keys we use to sign the
>>>>>>>>> release:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apache.org/dist/curator/KEYS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ ] +1  approve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ ] +0  no opinion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 


Mime
View raw message